.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 1st, 2004, 05:12 AM

csebal csebal is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 34
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
csebal is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

That brings up another point.

The smaller starliner modules, along with the larger transport ships are simply not worth it.

Why?

Because you need larger ships to fit multiple modules, which means:

more engines, more support modules -> more upkeep

More importantly, you may also need some improved starliner modules, which are quite expensive (well, at least they were in 2.5.x) compared to the first (clumsiest) Version.

So if you compare a large transport, that can carry multiple units of pop to a medium transport, that only carries one unit, you'll realize, that two medium pop. transport ships are cheaper to maintain than one 'technologycally advanced' large ship.

-- About the small starliner:
IT really should be worse than the medium transport, after all it is easily available from the start. Then again, i never build it, as by the time i get to build pop transport ships, i always have the medium transport ship class, so all in one, the starliners definitely need some fixing.

The goal is to make them viable, but underpowered compared to the medium transports.
Here is a suggestion:
- give those ships a rather high base price, so it'll take many turns to build even a single one. Say: about 5-10 turns on a homeworld.
- give them a damn high maint. reduction, say 90%, to offset their rather high price, and make them economically viable to use on the long run, compared to regular transport ships.
- Limit their speed (this is already done) compared to the regular transport ships.
- Give them some -999% defense and attack bonuses.

With this, you'll get a slow to build, extremely cheap to maintain transport ship, that is a lot slower than the regular tranports, but costs less to maintain on the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 2nd, 2004, 01:47 PM
PvK's Avatar

PvK PvK is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,806
Thanks: 54
Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts
PvK is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

The smaller starliner modules aren't worth it, because they themselves cost so much. They use more advanced technology (perhaps cryogenics) to maximize the population storage per kiloton. It turns out to be inefficient in most cases, which _is_ a balance issue, yes.

The larger ships can I think be a little more efficient than medium transports, if you don't use those high-tech colony modules, and especially if you do use the gravitic drives.

However, I agree there are balance issues. The Medium Transport still ends up being the best utility ship for most, if not all, purposes.

I have design issues though besides balance, which want some thought before implementing balance-only fixes, especially:

* The darn single-cargo-type dilemma. I won't be happy if starliner modules become the best choice for anyone wanting a fairly large amount of cargo. If they get much more cost-effective at higher tech, then people will start putting starliner modules on carriers, which would be silly.

This comes down to which cargo component has the best rate, and which offers the highest capacity.

Then, as you suggest, there could also be something done with the hull types. Similar to the module problem, I wouldn't want to see people using starliners for mining and space yard ships (etc), because they had such high maintenance reduction.

Perhaps what would do better would be making small transports clearly most efficient, but always incapable of reaching 1000 kT capacity (and incapable of holding shipyards). Then perhaps the higher-tech starliner modules should be more no (or not much) less efficient than the first SL module, but store 2MT, 3MT... per module.

The goal would be for small transports to be the best choice for moving units, medium transports to be the best choice for mounting shipyards and such, and starliners with SL modules to be the best choice for moving population...

hopefully, there are numbers to be found which can satisfy those goals.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

Meanwhile, does anyone know the fellow in game #3 who hasn't sent in his first turn yet, or if he is coming back? Looks like he might need to be replaced so the game can start...

PvK
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 2nd, 2004, 01:58 PM
Ed Kolis's Avatar

Ed Kolis Ed Kolis is offline
General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Ed Kolis is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

Scale mounts for starliner modules, perhaps, so they can only be placed on starliners?
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 3rd, 2004, 02:35 AM

se5a se5a is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 776
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
se5a is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

ahh this may have been mentioned but in Ice plannet colonizers reserch it says ... traded colonizers to optain colonisation...
should be obtain
__________________
[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Flag_NewZeland.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 5th, 2004, 03:37 AM
PvK's Avatar

PvK PvK is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,806
Thanks: 54
Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts
PvK is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

Quote:
Ed Kolis said:
Scale mounts for starliner modules, perhaps, so they can only be placed on starliners?
Yes, that's a good idea, thanks...

... and thanks se5a for the typo alert. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Target.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 5th, 2004, 05:23 PM
Ed Kolis's Avatar

Ed Kolis Ed Kolis is offline
General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Ed Kolis is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

Anyone reading the PBW forum for this game? I've posted a couple issues there...
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 5th, 2004, 06:18 PM
PvK's Avatar

PvK PvK is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,806
Thanks: 54
Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts
PvK is on a distinguished road
Default Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2

Thanks Ed, I hadn't read it lately. I'm replying there.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.